Just the Five of Us

In My Classroom . . .

from “The Daily Grind”  Philip W. Jackson

“Thus, when our young student enters school in the morning . . . it is a fairly stable environment—one in which the physical objects, social relations, and major activities remain much the same from day to day, week to week, and even, in some respects, from year to year . . . There is, in other words, a uniqueness to the student’s world.” (p118)

The words that stood out to me here were “stable environment.” I think it’s important for teachers to realize that for some students, school is the most stable force in their lives. Given that I taught in a junior high—a hotbed of emotional, physical, and social development—that’s crucial to remember. It’s important to remember that students are well used to the “daily grind” of the school day, and it’s quite a task to keep the environment stable and secure, while at the same time varied enough to maintain and pique interest. I was very proud of my classroom management when I taught. I manage to run a pretty tight ship with regard to how students interacted with themselves and me and because of this, I was able to do many varied activities with my class. It’s an interesting dichotomy . . . my students never knew what to expect when they walked into class each day (with regard to the lesson and what they would be doing), yet they always knew what to expect (with regard to my expectations about the class environment and the insistence I had on respectful interaction). One of my students once told me that my class didn’t even fell like a class . . . words I took as praise. The Jackson article brings a certain perspective to what we expect of students and a reminder that much of the students’ day becomes so ingrained in them. In my case, I only saw my students 42 minutes a day, unless I had them for homeroom. That’s a small window of time to a student, yet to me, it was never big enough. Teachers are tasked, I think, with taking that environment and keeping it stable and secure (and not a fun free for all) while at the same time, shaking it up enough to get students’ thinking, moving, and interacting in ways that make them think, when they leave, that it didn’t even seem like school. A difficult task, but not impossible.

Objectives

As part of my Curriculum Foundations class, we do a ton of readings about curriculum and how it has developed over the past century and a half. Some of the essays are really dry, but some are fascinating. In each reading, we have to pick a quote that "speaks to us" and react to it.

From “Educational Objectives—Help or Hindrance?” Elliot Eisner

“The amount, type, and quality of learning that occurs in a classroom, especially when there is interaction among students, are only in small part predictable” (p109).

When I was taking my methods classes, my professors encouraged us to make use of “teachable moments,” telling us there wasn’t any real way to predict them but we’d know them when we were in them. I found, when I was teaching, that there were many of these teachable moments. One of the things I loved most about being in the classroom was that every day was different and dynamic, even with the same students. On some days, every class was different. There were many times that a lesson started out one way but due to student participation and interest—and sometimes my realization that what I had planned was just not going to work—it ended completely differently than what I had intended. This is the reality of teaching . . . or it should be. No matter how many state standards are imposed or how many tests the students have to take, nothing should take away a teachers’ ability to use teachable moments in their classes. To use the way the students interact and often teach one another to guide their planning. And to understand that learning can’t be standardized and there will always be room for creativity. No matter how many objectives are written, there are some elements of instruction and learning that happen “on the fly” while teachers are in those teachable moments that a group of students can sometimes create. They are every bit as valid and effective and, I would argue, crucial to good instruction and good teaching.

from  “Objectives” W. James Popham

“There are undoubtedly some objectives . . . which may currently be unassessable yet are so intrinsically meritorious that they are worth the risk of some instructional investment” (p95).

I think it’s important to keep in mind that some of the best educational experiences with our students can happen in those unscripted, sometimes unplanned for, but almost always valuable moments that we can’t quantitatively justify or explain. Not always able to put into words what has happened—but we know there’s been good teaching and good learning. Clear goals and objectives are important, but sometimes students can learn from lessons that we teach, daresay, just for the fun of it and don’t necessarily assess. Those lessons or topics that we teach because we believe they have, like Popham said, intrinsic value in them that can’t always be objectified or measured. One of my favorite lessons I taught was punctuating dialogue. Alone, it was a fairly non-exciting topic, and I myself couldn’t stand the thought of reading through the boring sentences in the book. So, I used my need to teach correct punctuation into an excuse to teach some Shakespeare. I taught seventh grade—in my district, students were still two years away from any Shakespeare (if they followed college prep). It was not in my curriculum, and I didn’t plan to assess students on what they learned, but we had a Shakespeare day anyway. We talked about what the students already knew about him, I gave a mini lecture on his life and times, and we talked about life in Elizabethan England. I mentioned some movies and stories they might be familiar with that had origins in Shakespearean works—and I introduce the idea of an archetype. I did this only to put these ideas in their heads and make Shakespeare seem less intimidating—I hope that when he was introduced later on, they might remember that he could be fun. To that end, I shared some of the more tame Shakespearean insults and had the students write conversations using them. On these, I did correct their punctuation, but I think they took more away from those days than just how to use quotation marks. I broadened their horizons, and students learned, retained, and engaged in the process . . . all without a state objective or assessment! 

Article Review

I read a fascinating article on using video games as assessment. Here are my thoughts.

Gee, J.P. & Shaffer, D.W. (2010). Looking where the light is bad: video games and the

future of assessment. Edge, 8(1), 3-19. Retrieved from www.pdkintl.org

Brief Summary

In the article, the Gee and Shaffer set forth the idea that current forms of assessment are outdated and encourage only rote learning and memorization. These assessments are driving teachers to have to teach to the test, leaving students vastly unprepared for the complex problems they will need to solve when they are adults in society. Currently, “today’s standardized assessments, coupled with a punitive accountability model, encourage and support a skill-and-drill system of learning that does not lead to problem solving, innovation, or preparation for future learning” (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 18). They call for a total overhaul of the assessment process, looking to video games as inspiration as they are often designed to reach all levels of players, challenge players in entertaining ways, and continually assess players’ performance and track their progress through levels. Having students “play games” to assess them will allow teachers and administrators to track student progress and assess them as they solve complex problems using the types of digital media that are commonly used in many fields. Moreover, using games to assess is good educational practice because “games use actual learning as the basis for assessment: their assessments are built on problem solving and facing challenges” (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 18).

Key Points

When using video games to assess, learning and assessment become tied together rather than existing separate of themselves. This constant intermingling of learning and assessment is not only natural but crucial because “students shouldn’t have to ‘step outside’ for separate assessment events. When diagnostic learning tasks continually assess the development of learners, we get a portrait of problem solving decisions in real time” (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 8). Not only can we see how students are interacting with the material on which they are being assessed, but while playing a game, students are constantly learning, being assessed, and receiving feedback which can increase learning.

In addition, games measure how far a student has come, not how well they did on one test on one day. Lee and Shaffer (2010) point out that

We do not measure growth, only whether a student has passed through the gate, no matter how small or long a trip this was for the child. And we hold teachers accountable in such terms, regardless of the progress their students have made, making judgments only about how many of their students passed through the gate. (p. 8)

This is probably one of the biggest problems with current forms of high stakes or standardized assessment—they only measure performance on one day on one test. A game or computer program can track student progress through the whole process, giving a more accurate picture of when concepts were mastered, which ones took more time, and strengths and weaknesses.

Lee and Shaffer (2010) suggest that 21^st century assessment must change what we test by becoming more problem solving oriented, integrate assessment with learning while tracking student progress over time, and change the purpose of assessment (p. 9). In doing so, rather than “sorting students and punishing ‘underperforming’ schools,’ assessment will provide students, administrators, parents, and teachers with feedback they can use to make decisions that support good learning” (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 9) One of the biggest challenges teachers face is what to do with the data and how to use it to guide instruction. As students work through the types of games to which the authors refer, the game itself can track and compile data and develop levels and introduce harder concepts when the student is ready for more learning. New assessments need to focus more on the process of learning and students’ abilities to apply what they’ve learned rather than simply put facts back down on a page.

Also, video games possess characteristics that should be present in all good assessments. They are built around solving problems and the choices that players make using the resources allotted to them when solving those problems. Games assess when players are ready to move on, allowing for more opportunities to differentiate assessment. Games can also gather and track large amounts of information about players and their performance, making it easier for teachers to not only see that students have mastered concepts, but how they have done so. Games also provide built in opportunities for growth and development, opening up new levels and unlocking new tools as students master concepts (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, pp. 10-11) Lee and Shaffer (2010) conclude that “good games achieve good learning because they do not set out, first and foremost, to teach. They set out to assess, and their approach to assessment leads to good teaching and learning” (p. 12) This is completely opposite they way we assess now—first, learn the material and then take an assessment to show knowledge. Rather, using games to assess ties the learning and the assessment together, and the learning comes from assessment—the game has a focus and a final desired outcome and it is designed to get the students there through active interaction.

Using games to assess would be able to include students in a group not normally included during assessments: their peers and professionals from the community. Games can track students’ performance against norms by professionals in similar fields in society to see how close students’ come to optimal performance. This would give valuable feedback as to whether or not students are learning the skills necessary to be successful outside of the classroom. According to Lee & Shaffer (2010), “Using a technique called epistemic network analysis (ENA), we can actually measure the similarities and differences between these ways of thinking” (p. 17).

One of the simplest reasons why assessing through video games is that they are good interest for students. Many students are familiar with gaming or other digital media (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 4). While using games and computer programs certainly should not replace the human interactions that take place in the classroom, they can certainly have a place. Appealing to students’ interests and skills can be very motivating and engaging for them.

Personal Reaction

I found this article fascinating. The world is becoming increasingly digital, and I think that using games and computer programs in schools can be beneficial if used judiciously. I think the thing that appealed to me the most was the ability of students to play these games at their own pace. The possibilities for differentiation are endless, really, as games are controlled by the players. As the player master concepts and moves through levels, their progress can be tracked and they can open more levels of play.

One of the things I think teachers struggle with is finding the time to evaluate and then use results of formative assessments. Games with the ability to track progress, show concepts mastered, and areas of struggle would be a valuable asset to teachers. Using games a as a formative assessment, teachers would be able to see what parts of a unit or lesson they may need to reteach or help students with. The games would also be able to provide great amounts of data that could be useful in evaluating students.

I think that using games as assessment would also put students in very proactive roles with regard to their learning. Rather than passively taking in information and then merely putting it back out onto a test, learning and being assessed through a game puts them in charge of the learning and assessing. They take an active role in the decision making—as they play, the choices they make will directly affect the outcome of the game. I think it would help students truly understand that teachers don’t “give” them grades—the students are the ones doing the work and processing and learning the information.

While I don’t think video games can replace all traditional tests and assessments (variety in anything is good), I think they have a valid place in assessing students. The ability to offer such a wide variety of complex—yet fun—problem solving opportunities that both teach and assess while keeping records of student progress would greatly benefit teachers and students. So many students already love playing these types of games—why not take advantage of that excitement and enthusiasm and use it to get them actively involved in their assessment?

Implications for Teachers

Assessing more complex problem solving will necessitate molding instruction around developing critical thinking skills in students. The types of activities that lend themselves to higher level thinking aren’t always so easily standardized, so I think it would be an adjustment in developing curriculum. Rather than focusing on testing drill and practice information, assessments will measure more complex thought processes, and teachers would need freedom to develop instruction that encourages problem solving.

I think care would need to be taken that putting assessment into a game need not be confused with taking teachers out of instruction and assessment process. Even though students would use games for some assessment, teachers would still need to be present and interact with students when necessary. On a practical level, teachers themselves will need to make sure that they can participate in the game and have a high comfort level with digital gaming. This would require good training and support.

Gaming can provide a more accurate picture of student success—in a era where some districts are contemplating merit pay, it would make more sense to base that pay on how much students have improved over the course of the unit or year rather than how well they did on a test on one day. The authors use the example of two eleventh grade girls entering school. One has had a privilege upbringing with lots of out of school experiences and is on grade level. The other is four years behind. By the end of the year, they are both at the same level, but one student has made up four years of material (Lee & Shaffer, 2010, p. 9). Assessments that can track this progress in the way that a computerized game can would show this massive improvement.

While the idea of using video games as assessment has merit, it is so vastly unlike current assessment. As such, implementing would require a significant paradigm shift with regard to how Americans view assessment and learning. But, and Lee & Shaffer (2010) mention, “the road to better schools starts by making the tests in school more like the games that students are already playing out of school” (p. 19). Teachers would need to have the full support of their administrations and support with how to best explain the education significance of such assessment—that it’s more than just playing a game.

 

Assessment Reflection #2: Writing Tests

One of the things that has stuck out in my mind over the past few classes is how little instruction I had with regard to writing tests. As such, when I think back to most of the tests I wrote, I know that many of them probably could have used a lot of work. In preparing for the test assignment, I’ve been going through what little work I have left from when I taught. The couple assessments I found weren’t terrible, but they definitely will benefit from revision.

            When I took my methods classes, I never had a single class or lesson on how to design a test. Authentic assessments were very popular, and I wrote unit after unit and project after project that had objectives, guided instruction, independent practice, and closure, but I never really had any instruction as to how to write a test to make sure it met the objectives. I think most of my assessments did, but that was largely due to the fact that I had a good sense of what I was doing and what I wanted the students to accomplish.

            When planning lessons and units, I always had Bloom’s taxonomy in the back of my mind, but it never occurred to me to make sure that my assessments reflected the taxonomy. Perhaps it was because I tried to avoid too many tests. When I did give tests, it was usually on factual knowledge—vocabulary or grammar. I’m intrigued by the idea of applying Bloom’s taxonomy to factual tests and trying to make some questions higher level thinking. Someone in class mentioned having students look through sentences to find errors as a way to have them evaluate. This is a great idea and lends itself to a grammar or vocabulary test very well.

            I wonder if methods classes have changed? When I entered the teaching world, it was before No Child Left Behind (and untested) and the rush to standardize outcomes and benchmarks. Perhaps that’s why there wasn’t much instruction in actual assessment creation. Maybe students coming out of college now have a better grasp on not only how to write tests  but how to make sure they are good tests that assess the objectives in a fair and planned way.

            I found the information on writing essay questions particularly interesting. I’ve written and graded lots of essay questions, and I like the format shown to us in class. At first, I left class feeling like I knew nothing about how to write essay questions. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that when I taught, the bones of a good question were there, they just weren’t fleshed out with precise directions and a description of point values. I prefer the model we were shown in class and intend to use it when writing future essay questions.

            In preparing for the test rewriting exercise, I found an old test that I wrote when I was student teaching that I’m going to rewrite. I think it’s a great example of what NOT to do . . . the test was almost entirely multiple choice and true/false. It was a literature test, so the questions themselves are heavy with text and quotations. It took a ton of time to write—it’s hard to write higher level thinking multiple choice questions to be aimed at high schoolers. Many of them should have been short answer. In my defense, I was instructed by my cooperating teacher to write the test so that it could be graded on a Scantron machine—easy to grade but hard to write. I’m sure it wasn’t any easier for my students to read through than it was for me to write (I was also instructed to keep it to one page, double sided, so the format itself is pretty compact).

            I’m so glad that I’m getting instruction and doing reading about writing assessments. I think it’s invaluable, and since I see myself still wanting to write some of my own assessments in the future (though I won’t be afraid use some parts of prepared ones if I think they are effective), I’m glad I know how to look through a test to see that it matches the objectives and evaluate it for Bloom’s taxonomy. Part of my philosophy of education is to make sure that my students develop as critical thinkers and problem solvers—my assessments should reflect the use of those skills while being tested.

Assessment Reflection #1

One of my classes this semester is Educational Assessment. We have to write reflections for the class, and this is my first one, focused in on assessment in general and what I used to do.

When I started teaching, I felt pretty confident about assessing students. At the time, authentic assessments were popular, and I spent a lot of time designing tests, projects, activities, and writing assignments that appealed to students, both their tastes and their different learning abilities. Not pleased with the tests and quizzes that came with the textbooks I used, I preferred to write most of my own. Designing my own assessments was extra work, but I liked having control over the content. I thought that using authentic texts—book excerpts, letters, song lyrics, students’ own writing, etc.—would appeal to the students and engage them more than the often dry material from the textbook.

            I also made sure that I had lots of opportunities for students to show their understanding. We did lots of quizzes, discussions, and little informal activities that allowed me to get a handle on who understood the material and who did not. I know that that this is formative assessment—at the time, I had no idea it even had a name.

            Doing so many assessments had two main benefits. For my benefit, I was able to get a well rounded view of students’ progress and eventual mastery. For my students’ benefit, they had plenty of chances to experience success or try for improvement. Some of my students didn’t do well on tests; I had other projects for them to do. My test and quiz takers had the chance to do well on traditional assessments, but I also challenged their creativity by assigning projects, essays, and speeches.

            This multi-assessment model approach did have its drawback—and it’s the one thing I think I’ll do differently when I go back. Everything was graded, and I had a ton of grades. At the time, I thought this was helpful as it gave students lots of chances to earn points and get good grades. What it also did, however, was put an emphasis on grades that I think was counterproductive. By grading everything, I wonder if I made students think that everything was just for a chance to improve the grade rather than to actually learn the material. As much as I disliked extrinsically motivated my students, I think I actually ended up doing so. By grading so much material—and constantly explaining to my students the opportunities they had to bring up their grades—I think I may have inflated the importance of the grade itself and not stressed the actual process of learning. Not to mention the grading process was consuming . . . there were marking periods that I had 700-800 points worth of work. Multiply that by five classes and it’s no wonder I was always grading something!

            The fact of the matter is that they way our educational system is set up, it’s all about the numbers. The test scores. The grades. In an ideal world, I’d be able to assign a pass/fail without actual number grades and students would work until comprehension. As a trained teacher, I wish it were enough that I could simply say that a student has improved and mastered a concept without having to attach a number to it. Students are motivated by grades, but all too often, it’s for the sense of simply earning a good enough grade to move on or qualify for a sport or activity rather than as a tool for assessing what they have accomplished—or may need to work on.

            When I go back, I’d like to lesson my focus on the grade. At the secondary level it’s not realistic to eliminate grades (though in my ideal educational setting I would), but I think I’d try to figure out a way to continue all the formative assessments without grading all of them and make more of a conscious effort to lessen the focus on the numbers.

Shift of Focus . . . a Little

I've decided to start posting some of my education writings here. I've been very busy with my classes, and I've been falling behind on the blog. I'm keeping up with photos and notes on Facebook, but I often don't have the time lately to post twice.

I'm still going to be blogging stories and things that come to me, but I'm also going to start writing about education issues and my thoughts as I get back into teaching.